The Appearance of Impropriety, pt. 1

[XLFD]

The judgment I have been seeking for  concerning a simple FOIA request was scheduled for summary disposition Wednesday, March 7, 2012, ironically exactly six months after the original request on September 7, 2011.  After numerous briefs and motions by both parties during that period, the plaintiffs, me and my girl Friday, along with George V. Saylor III, one of Ludington's numerous City Attorneys finally sat in court with the Circuit Court Judge, Richard I Cooper, starting the process the plaintiffs have waited so long for.  Read carefully all the material and links to see whether you can gauge what caused the issue at the end.

 

Ignore, Delay, Ignore, Obstruct, Thwart

That process has been incompletely detailed elsewhere, but to summarize, we received a reply from our request to effectively see the business records between the City of Ludington and then-City Councilor Candidate Nick Tykoski and his businesses on 9-13-2011.  The reply referred to four previous requests and said the request was duplicative and multiplicative.  No records were sent, and no way to receive them were given.  After numerous inquiries by both plaintiffs, we got an administrative appeal scheduled to take place on 9-26-2011 in front of the City Council. 

I had personally sent our full brief explaining our position to the City Council, and was assured by the City Clerk, Deb Luskin, in writing, that my brief would be part of the public record of this meeting.  I had asked the City Manager to receive written permission to come to the City Hall that night, such as was needed due to the Workplace Safety Policy passed by the City Council and the Letter of Trespass drafted by him that said I needed such permission to enter onto City Hall or LPD property.  I wasn't given any, but my lady was given a certified letter from the mayor inviting her to attend.  With noone to escort her to the ball, she wound up declining that invitation by not showing up.

Mayor Henderson started that meeting by striking the FOIA appeal from the agenda, and striking a power point presentation dubbed "Rotta/Swiger's FOIA Requests".  We later learned that was a presentation that looked to show how insidious we were for making FOIA requests to the city. 

We waited over the statutory ten business days without any response, to begin a filing in Circuit Court, commencing a civil action as per the appeal protocols in the FOIA.  We got a date for an injunctive hearing, filed the court paperwork, sent the summons and complaint to the City Clerk and found that Judge Richard I. Cooper was to be our jurist.

 

Full Court Stall

 

We wanted to get this resolved before the election, but for our first try to get it adjudicated, we had filed no "Notice to Appear", as we had thought the Court Clerk was to contact the defendant as well as they did us after a court date was set.  Then we found out at the second proposed hearing that we hadn't apparently served the defendants properly as pointed out in this letter that Richard Wilson sent to the court administrator  2011 11-10-11 RMW.  Our second scheduled court date was pushed back further, my fledgling attorney skills really kind of sucked, I guessed. 

We also received this letter from Judge Cooper  2011 11-10 RIC pushing it back to December 13th, or so we thought, in our naivete.  Expecting a review that day, we met with George V. Saylor III, in a jury conference room and ironed out the details of the civil action we had started.  This had been made into a full civil case with discovery, witness lists, etc. with those such things taking 60 days to complete.  So much for our expediency.  A few days later, the court date was sent to us, 3-14-2012.

During this time, we as plaintiffs seeking information from a City government who wouldn't allow us to get it legit, made us both answer interrogatories, requests to admit, depositions (one blocked by a Motion to Quash), and prepare numerous filings ourselves.  Without a doubt, most of the defendant's material was needlessly insulting to our character, and designated to divert attention from the claim.  It's within the rules, but not very pleasant.

Even though we were cooperative with them, they decided that they would use court rules to block any use of discovery on our part, not allowing the two people who acted as FOIA Coordinators for Ludington, John Shay and Richard Wilson, to answer anything we sent their way. 

They then had the nerve in mid-February to make motions seeking to sanction either me or my girl for the following: avoiding a deposition (albeit legally), not completely answering interrogatories (but with proper objections), and for me impersonating a lawyer (perish that thought).  The only thing we were really able to discover from them, were that they were fine in acting like spoiled jerks out to get a lot of extra money for this 'special project'.  But that has been on display before.

 

Affidavits From a Scoundrel

 

A new FOIA from us was sent shortly after the City Manager tried to give us 11 records that we had already seen before in this brief, and certified via an affidavit that it was a complete response.  It wasn't; my new request was for nine invoices referred to in DDA Financial Records (I had previously gotten through an FOIA).  I can't say whether CM Shay crapped his pants when he got caught in this fib, but in short order, we received ten records from CA Saylor on 2-22-2012, yet still not complete, followed by some more in the morning and afternoon of 2-24-2012, roughly two dozen new records, many showing Heather Venzke and John Shay signing the invoices that Tykoski's companies made for them to sign.  

Among all these records, there was never a contract-- not a one-- between the City and Tykoski's companies, even though Tykoski's companies looked to make a cool $150,000 over TIF time from making and putting up 25K gold painted signs around the downtown.  What a gig: no contract, no competitive bids, and no need to hold costs down because the fiance has the people's checkbook. 

Each such revelation of new documents were delared to be a complete response, it began to have a bit of Vaudeville about the whole thing.  A brief ( SBrief pt1) filed with the court by Saylor at the end of the next week, had another affidavit by John Shay telling me the FOIA response was satisfied, with the corresponding phrase from CA Saylor that the "plaintiffs' FOIA appeal was moot". 

But during that same time, we had the opportunity to review the DDA's Heather Venzke's PPO application at the courthouse, and found  this record among her various supporting documents that was totally new to us, and fulfilled the original request.  We prepared a voluminous, but to the point, supplemental brief ouselves and got this to the court a couple of days before the supplemental hearing. 

Eventually after a brief interlude with CA Saylor in court on 3-7-2012 (this Wednesday), we found that this missing record was actually two documents (a check stub and a statement) ran together, and copied unto one page.  The lower document was given to us in late October.  As many pages of the Ludington Torch and public records that should be only present at her office (such as check stubs and invoices) was included in the PPO application, one could likely presume that Mrs. Tykoski Heather Venzke, at that time, had ran off all the copies at her office at the City Hall.  In effect, she reviewed the Ludington Torch at work, and printed out a couple dozen copies such as this on the public's dime, and more than likely, on the public's time.  Maybe she could declare it was all for the matter of workplace safety. 

 

Hangin' With Judge Cooper

 

Our Wednesday morning court appearance was delayed by some prior courtroom drama.  In traffic court, a young man was a bit upset when he came from his appearance before the judge (not Cooper) out into the hall.  He had been hauled into court (actually he probably requested his own hearing) to contest a traffic ticket he was given for not dimming his lights one night when a policeman drove by, wheeled around and ticketed him.  I was once a passenger in a car that was stopped for the same thing before, but the driver wasn't given a ticket.  This guy who just lost was a bit miffed, and very eager to explain, without prompting, the farce he had just been subjected to.  After he paid the fine, he said he was going to wipe his behind with it as he headed down the stairs.  I felt his pain.

We finally got into court and took our seats.  Although both of us and Saylor had been in the hall for over a half hour, he was not his usual gregarious and glib self, so I thought something may have been up.

Judge Cooper had us take our seats and the court case began.  The judge went over the basics of the case and then paused, then laid a bombshell on us about an appearance of impropriety...

        (To be continued in part 2, where we find out what Judge Cooper meant.  Can you figure out what this appearance of impropriety is before its revelation in that thread?)

Check that out here and its follow-up here.

[XLFD]

Nice try, Judge Cooper, aka Willy Smith.  The charade is at long last over.

In reality, the honorable jurist did not recuse himself for being a closet Torcher or troll.

[Sweater Cows!]

I see it now, Craig Cooper is an attorney/employee at the law firm handling this for the city of ludington. And I will assume with a last name of Cooper he is somehow related to the judge and therefor it would  be the APPEARANCE of impropriety even though he may not be involved in this case specifically it could look wrong if things were into an appeals court.

So what judge will be hearing this case now? Will it go out of county to go before a Circuit court judge as I believe it is in Circuit court right?

[AQUAMAN]

Here's the real question to ask: how long has Cooper Jr. been with the law firm with Wilson? And how long since this case started, September?, has Cooper Sr. known of the obvious conflict of interest and impropriety? If in fact Sr. has known for some time, and waited to see if X would crumble or fold under the pressure before he made any final judgments on the case, effectively stalled, for the sake of ego, then he may have overstepped his objective responsibilities to his profession, thus making him arguably punishable with a suspension, or perhaps even a disbarment? Either way, he should have brought this to the attention of all the interested parties long ago if Jr. was there all along. Even if Jr. joined recently, at that moment, or week, he should have disqualified himself immediately. Evidently, he did not, and waited, hoped, and stalled to save his own face, and help the City of Ludington, which now may have turned the tables on him in the end. As to whom else hears the case, I guess that decision will come soon enough, and most likely be a neighboring county judge if I had to guess. This means a lot more stalling, for the new Honor to read and review the voluminous case file, another great ploy for the COL. To me the more interesting case now involves his Honor, and how he plans to wiggle out of this crisis to his very own livelihood, or will the State and Bar Assoc. sweep it under the rug?

[XLFD]

Unfortunately, Dale, some people use their knowledge of the law in order to subvert it, such as our City's Chief Executive.  Judge Richard Cooper is a smart man, and knows a lot more about law than I ever will, but then he should know the Canons of judicial ethics are very clear on what to do when there may be an appearance of impropriety, just as this case represented. 

I hope the forms I send to the Attorney Grievance Commission and the Judicial Tenure Commission on this "eleventh hour oversight" trigger an investigation as to why this wasn't immediately disclosed.  As for the new judge, I as of yet have no idea who it is to be, but the established briefs and other documents will be forwarded to them. 

[Willy]

Dale

My hat's off to you. Excellent catch. The following link lists some of Richard I Coopers relations, one of which is person named Craig. If it's not the same Craig then it would be a rare coincidence,  so I think you solved the riddle.

http://www.intelius.com/Find-Phone-Address/Ludington-MI/Richard-Coo...

Aquaman

Excellent points. I think, as you do, that the judge has stepped into a pile of s--t and has a lot of explaining to do.

X

Could your situation get anymore bizarre?

[AQUAMAN]

See what I mean Willy, how much more bizarre indeed? Unthinkable and totally unbelievable to see the waste of 6 months time and then get to this dead end. Hoping and praying that X would run out of money, run out of patience, run out of solid mind and body perhaps?  Dale, I'm not Torching Cooper Sr. yet, but it appears, by his own admissions, that he knows the law, but, did he follow it!? Or almost? Or did he seek to twist and spin it? Distort it to get an advantage for the City? Delay and stall to help the City's efforts? If even one of these event proves out later, oh boy........someone really did step in SxxT, and it sure aint me for even I know better that this for a layman at law. There's another idea for ya Dale, start reading some law, get some facts, some education, some intelligence behind your posts, maybe then you won't be such a blatant grandstand participant, devoid of relevance....lol.

[Willy]

X

Here is another question that if I am correct will have severe consequences for Judge Cooper. I have thought from the beginning that it was extremely odd that a Judge would allow the complainants of a minor FOIA hearing to be grilled, for no apparent reason, by an out of town law firm, at a senseless and unneeded deposition. The deposition was totally irrelevant and meaningless. I'm sure the same questions will arise when and if the Judges actions come into question during an official inquiry. I think the crap is going to get pretty deep for all of the FOIAgate conspirators which now would seem to include a sitting judge. I've been following your journey since the ticket and I am absolutely  amazed at how this has all turned out.

[XLFD]

Good points, Willy, and I think you figured that angle out quicker than I did after hearing of the problem with impropriety.  The questions arise:  1)  Why did the court not act on The Motion to Quash, one way or the other?  If Judge Cooper acted on any of these intermediate motions in any way (which to his benefit, he didn't) he could have been under more severe penalties; and yet his inaction was a detraction to the cause of propriety and justice.  2)  Why did he not make any declaration between when the Gockerman law firm joined (in 10-2011) and 3-07-2012 about the obvious harassing actions and requested sanctions of the defendant, or expediate the process?   See the answer to #1. 

I hope to eventually find out in my quest for truth and information, but even with investigations, I may still be in the dark. 

[XLFD]

If Judge Mark Raven is the newly appointed arbitrator, it could very well get a lot more bizarre!  Our history together has been bizarre and contentious.  More on that later, if you weren't following the Torch before 2010.

[Willy]

Dale

First of all you can stop using the dash in my name, if you want peace. Second, I am not a legal wiz but trying to understand how  a person who is  highly educated in their field and is at the top of their profession would not understand or catch the meaning of the relationship they have with a relative who may be the apposing council in a legal battle that he would be presiding over. After all it didn't take you long to make the connection so why did it take the judge 6 months. He can't be that naive or ignorant. His action or lack of it opens the door to speculation as to his motives for missing that connection. This is his doing and he is a public official so he's open for criticism and scrutiny. I'm also curious as to his past practices regarding other cases he has dealt with. To me this throws a shadow over his reign as a judge in Mason County.

[XLFD]

One can imagine the Judge and his son getting together on Thanksgiving and Christmas, at least, and talking ex-parte about this case over drumsticks and hamhocks.

[XLFD]

Granted.  Here is the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, check especially:

Canon 2:  A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
B. A judge should respect and observe the law. At all times, the conduct and manner of a judge should promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Without regard to a person's race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and respect.
C. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not use the prestige of office to advance personal business interests or those of others. A judge should not appear as a witness in a court proceeding unless subpoenaed.

 

Note an accusation of impropriety differs from the appearance of impropriety.  This applied the same to the two assistant prosecutors of Muskegon who had a trip to Las Vegas paid for by a bail bondsman, and were sacked in the thread of the same day of this I submitted.